what about the lawyers? I think I'd put them ahead of marketers... but just.

--
I drank what?

Ok, I'll admit to not having read the article or much of the details... if it was a "opt in" kind of thing, then I would agree... picketing is probably the best "real world" like example.

I was speaking more generically about DDOS attacks when some pissed off group claims responsibility and tries to wrap themselves in a cloak of righteousness.

--
I drank what?

While I like the term "cyber-picketing" better than "hacktivism" (that word just sounds stupid, period), I think I must point out at least a slight difference from traditional picketing...

Picketers perform what is (usually) non-violent interference, but the individuals involved are not hiding... if they do cross the line to violent activity (assaulting people who wish to break the line, damaging property, etc.) they can and are arrested, usually as individuals, unless it reaches potential riot proportions.

"Cyber-picketers" sit behind a wall of more or less anonymity, often using hundreds or thousands of OTHER PEOPLE'S COMPUTERS to distance their person from the activity... so when they cross the line of illegality (and in all honesty, using someone else's computer for purposes they do not know about or have not agreed to is illegal in most places) who can be removed to return it to a "peaceful" protest?

--
I drank what?

Yes, but a useful one... I can't count the number of times I've edited someone's code to capitalize the SQL commands so that the fields and where clauses are more easily picked out of a complex query.

Not saying you're wrong, just that some conventions exist for a reason... and removing the caps-lock simply because some users miss-use it seems more like cutting off an arm because the fingers constantly flick you off...

--
I drank what?

I'd have to agree with this on the level of likely media awareness of a young child... if you're looking for heroes he won't have to explain, then these are probably the most scientific... not rigorous in the sense of a University Physics lab, but a heck of a lot more rigorous than most anything else that gets wide media attention... identify what to test (myth), give initial hypothesis (explanation), identify how to test, revise if necessary, test, scale up, come to conclusion, revise in later shows, re-test, etc.

Other "heroes" to consider might be internet entrepreneurs, who while not being scientific themselves, managed to take new technology in directions not grasped before... Facebook, Google, Netscape... might be more commercially oriented than you want, but still, it's an area your son and his friends will know well soon, if he doesn't already.

Unfortunately true scientific or mathematical skill comes with a lot of background work and most don't get the credit they deserve, even when older, but definitely not while they're still learning.

I told my daughter (now 17) that true skill takes time, and the flashiness of athletes and movie stars almost always dies quickly... a few make it, but thousands don't. I tried to teach her (I hope successfully, and her math and science grades suggest I might have succeeded at least a little bit...) that a hero is one who sticks to her guns, as long as the evidence supports her, and isn't afraid to admit when they were wrong and change their theories. The hero is one true to the search, not the result... cause it only takes one bad result to take you down.

Hope this helps in some small way :-)

--
I drank what?

The problem as I see it is not so much how good X is or isn't (and I've seen cases where it's both), but what happens to all of the existing software that is in use, largely in Academia, but also to a significant degree in engineering and other industries using decades old software...

If X compatibility is actually any good, then fine, let change come... OS X was worlds better than the Classic Mac OS, but they did maintain the ability to run a classic emulator (at least until the Intel machines started coming out)... Change can be a fine and necessary thing, but expecting everyone to rebuild and recode before we see how it plays out is just hubris.

--
I drank what?

Ok, I'll give you the Disney World versus Florida claim... it generally is the special places we go to that stand out...

However, I will say that telling me you went anywhere that ends in "-shire", I'm gonna assume England in the absence of more information. Probably not a safe generalization as I'm sure I've just slighted someone somewhere somehow, but to my ears it sounds like a safe first guess... though I would admit to it being a guess were I called on it.

Iraq and Afghanistan... those are in China, right? (for the humor impaired, I'm joking...) I'd have agreed with you, though 10 years ago... however, with the recent wars (whether you're pro or con), I'd bet more Americans know where they are now then ever before...

--
I drank what?

Not sure I totally agree... Florida's got Disney World (Disney Land? Well, one of the Mickey Mouse hellholes at any rate) and it gets a crap load of foreign tourists...

I would assume (and yes, I am assuming here, but it seems reasonable) that Florida, California, and maybe New York or Washington D.C. should be identifiable by most non-Americans in Europe... Maybe Chicago if someone were actually interested in the US. Beyond that, I'd be surprised if they knew where anything was... I certainly don't, and I live here.

--
I drank what?

what's the second rule?

--
I drank what?

I would argue that's a not a problem of the internet, that's a problem of the fact that we don't get the information first hand and evaluate it for ourselves... TV and print media can be accused (and have been) of the same thing.

Ya gotta trust your sources. Next best, understand the biases and "agenda" of your sources and factor that into it...

With a handful of sources, it's easier for the sources to "watch each others back", so to speak. With more sources, it easier to get flooded with crap and have to spend more time cross checking.

Pick your battle cause neither is perfect and it's far from clear which will ultimately prove better.

--
I drank what?

Used CD dealers used to be used tape dealers who used to be user record dealers...

Anyone in this market should know that the market exists because formats change and peoples needs change...

You're right they'll take a hit... but they have before and they'll come up with something new, as they always have.

Granted, I don't know what form it will take... maybe used MP3 players or used flash storage? Who knows...

But I somehow feel that this industry is used to change, even if a given dealer may not be.

--
I drank what?

Maybe... where can I get an 8 track player these days? While CD players abound... in computers, in cars, in game stations... and DVD (and Blueray? Don't know, don't have one yet...) players can play CD's...

I admit it's late, but it may allow a last gasp, since the players surround us.

--
I drank what?

WTF does this have to do with slashdot? I mean I'm not *that* new here, but this seems to be a new low for (1) having little to nothing to do with technology and (2) creating a forum that will do nothing but create flame wars.

--
I drank what?

I'm not really arguing the privacy aspect of it, and I agree that data mining can find relationships we can't even conceive of yet...

I'm arguing that the aspect of using (anonymously or not) my biological material, that I have an implied expectation of being used solely for my benefit (identifying what is wrong with me), in any other way is not being done with informed consent.

I may very well allow someone to use my biological matter to research some ailment, even knowing that it won't be done anonymously... but I should have the right to say yes or no.

This may be a naive expectation, but if it is, then it should be made clear IN PERSON, not just in tiny type on a page I have to sign or initial before they will work on me.

--
I drank what?

What's scary about this is not the use of the blood samples or even the DNA. What's scary is the lack of informed consent.

Not being a lawyer, I often find it difficult to fully understand waivers and contracts without spending a lot of time going over them... and even then I sometimes have to ask questions.

Now, in this case it is for newborns, so one could argue the parents, in general, will have plenty of time before hand to do so... maybe. But lets take the more general case of why someone is in the hospital -- they need help - surgery, medication, therapy, etc. The point being that they don't have the time to read everything and fully understand it as they need help NOW.

It is quite possible that somewhere in the legalese I have signed to proceed with medical treatment of me or my daughter, I have at some point signed away my right to my biological material. And in most cases, I would likely be fine with this, as it has been pointed out here and elsewhere that this is often used to further medicine, research health trends, etc.

But you can't deny that the IMPLIED purpose of drawing my blood in the emergency room is to run tests ON ME because of the treatment I might need at THIS TIME. If the intent is to do so AND use/sell my blood for further research, then I am not fully informed (I have already conceded that I might have signed something to that effect, but (1) am I in my right mind when I'm in pain? and (2) it was not explained to me that way, just given to me on a piece of paper.

So, it is completely plausible that this could have been/is done now in a LEGAL way involving consent -- but it is not done in a CLEAR and INFORMED way.

That's what I find scary...

--
I drank what?